I had forgotten. Lévesque’s work brought back the early days of my graduate training …and at the risk of sounding old – before the days of Microsoft Word and on-line accessible databases. My fellow students and I carried books – literally stacks of them – and argued the intent and philosophy of history. While we discussed the schools and evolution of historiography, like Lévesque but in far more detail and lots more authors); I do not recall ever discussing pedagogical theory. I had come from a research institution and research was my goal. Over the past year, I have learned (you really can teach an old dog new tricks) that considering the content and style of communicating history is quite important.
Discussion of the historical practices was familiar ground and as Wineburg discusses, so engrained as to be invisible. It is part of my being and approach to all thinking, not just history…which is another reason why historians contribute more to the world around them, then just history. Although I have been thinking about the structure of my courses in great depth and including methodological practices akin to those described by Stern and Wineburg and Calder and Lévesque; I had not compiled them as a unique educational theory or “signature pedagogy”, but rather a “Toolbox” which was I think one of my textbooks in grad school.
One of the reasons I enrolled in the Digital Humanities Certificate was to discover: How to reduce the workload of on-line teaching? I am gathering clues and reflecting on adapting practices: such as replacing physical engagement in archives with virtual engagement with archives). The reality of on-line teaching is still HIGHLY labor intensive: as course sites must be continually updated and in the on-line environment; teaching can become very individualized leading to the phenomena of 50 classes rather than 1 class with 50 students. Although Calder’s application is obviously created for ground courses; his concepts of ‘signature process’ would lead to easier revision.
My training was much akin to Sam Wineburg’s I believe and I found it ironic that he credited Roy Rosenzweig with transformation in his historical pedagogy and practice. As we move to new techniques and resources, it is easy to succumb to the historical fallacy that all change is progress. What is being lost from the practice of history as we move towards increased reliance on digital technologies and methodologies? Do we rely too much on remote access and documents? What are we forgetting to include in our research, now that more documents and commentaries are accessible from our chair than we could ever read? Are we having conversations with elderly historians or just blogging our thoughts? A good loss is ‘not having to’ drag around and beg, borrow and buy literal tons of textbooks!
Although I can see and to a large part agree with Lendol Calder’s theory that teaching unseen historical practices is more important than exposure to the survey content. .. How do I balance the loss of content and with increased engagement and practice, without feeling guilty? I am making a historical judgement here: in our current anti-intellectual age, the ignorance of the content of our past is so deep as to be almost terrifying. I teach in a community college, where economics, social circumstances and often cultural differences have prevented the accumulation of basic knowledge of the past. Every semester, presents a challenge to balance disciplinary practices and the subject matter content so necessary to create an “informed” citizenry. This week’s reflections inspire me to be more intentional and thoughtful in creating this balance.
Post Script after Module 3
T. Mills Kelly in “The History Curriculum in 2023” edwired (blog). January 2013, asserts that History and the teaching of it must change – not just in the adaptation of digital technologies, but in the way in responds to and provides benefit for the society. His ‘curriculum of the future’ proposes “Making, Mining, Marking and Mashing”. These terms are standard vocabulary in tech media; and the fact that they are strange in this context is an indication that indeed…History needs to progress.
In the blog, Dr. Kelly does not explain how he arrived at his mantra, but thinking about these “activities” and asking the question – ‘How do historians do that’ is certainly a way to transform “stodgy practices into “cool activities”. As “Ms. Frizzle” called a generation of school children to “get messy” in science; Dr. Kelly calls historians to demonstrate how are tasks really are interesting, creative and applicable! (Oh no, us insiders may lose our privileged secret that History is FUN!?!) The problem lies in teaching the structures and practices of a discipline that relies upon them to organize and preserve its resources. But historians know the essence of history is engagement with ideas, people, events, beliefs and context…this is better than fiction! Speaking to our students and society ‘in context’ should be easy for historians and once we have made these connections our students will recognize how “making” with the tools of the past may have been arduous, but provided the structure for building the tools of the present. “Marking” may be a hot occupation, but is also a lens and entry into populations that have been hidden. Mashing is just fun; but also helps us rethink the sacred cows we hold in various periods of time. Applying the vocabulary helps us dust off our tools and re-engage. History and teaching, will never be the same.
